Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches

WRITING THE RESEARCH REPORT AND THE POLITICS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH

collecting information and maintaining records

were necessary. The act resulted in fewer publica-

tions from government-sponsored research. In ad-

dition, the law had been “used on occasion to restrict

information not supportive of executive branch pol-

icy goals” (Shattuck and Spence, 1988:47). For

example, in the health field, research projects with

an environmental focus that indirectly criticized

business or government policy had a higher chance

of being rejected for publication under “paperwork

reduction” justification than projects with a tradi-

tional disease focus that indirectly blamed the vic-

tim. In the name of cost cutting, government

agencies stopped collecting information, removed

information from public circulation, and shifted in-

formation collection to private businesses. Officials

cut U.S. government publishing offices and raised

prices of their documents. Bureaucratic decisions

not to collect certain information can have research

information and policy implications.

Limits Due to the Influence of Politicians. Unfortu-
nately, some people outside the scientific commu-
nity attack social research when it disagrees with
their social or political values. A politician or jour-
nalist may hear about a research project in a con-
troversial area, misinterpret it, and then use the
occasion to attract publicity. For example, Professor
Harris Rubin at the University of Southern Illinois
intended to investigate the effects of THC (the ac-
tive agent in marijuana) on sexual arousal. Only
contradictory myths, and almost no scientific evi-
dence, existed at the time. He very carefully fol-
lowed all required procedures and obtained all
clearances, and the National Institute of Mental
Health decided to fund the research project after sci-
entific peer review. However, a conservative mem-
ber of Congress learned of the research topic from
nearby newspapers and introduced an amendment
to prohibit further funding. In addition, Dr. Rubin
had to repay all funds for the project to the federal
government. Despite arguments by the scientific
community that politicians should not interfere with
legitimate research, the funding was cut. Politicians
might fear supporting social research if an opposing
candidate could tell voters that the government was
paying for students to “get stoned and watch porno

films.”^22 In 1989, members of Congress blocked

funding for a major national survey on sexual be-

havior to combat the AIDS epidemic because they

did not believe that it was proper for social re-

searchers to inquire into human sexual behavior

(also see Example Box 1, U.S. Congressmen Ques-

tion Research Funding).^23

The U.S. Senate canceled a research project on

teenage sex conducted by the National Institutes of

Health (NIH). The study was to survey 24,000 teens

about their social activities, family lives, and sexual

behaviors to provide background for understanding

AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Many researchers said they did not want to speak

out on the issue for fear that they would become the

target of attacks by political groups. Some who

EXAMPLE BOX 1

U.S. Congressmen Question

Research Funding

In 1998, Representative Marshall Sanford of South

Carolina said he wanted to cut National Science

Foundation (NSF) funding for studies of questionable

“scientific value.” Apparently believing he was a bet-

ter judge of scientific value than the scientific com-

munity, he cited studies about automatic teller

machines and billiards. NSF officials observed that

the research to which the congressman referred, the

abbreviated AT Mfor asynchronous transfer modes,

a high-speech data technique, not automatic teller

machines,and billiardsis a term physicists use in

atomic theory for a subatomic particle, not the game

as the congressman had assumed. Representative

Sanford, along with a representative from California,

indicated a desire to punish the NSF for supporting

what they deemed unnecessary, wasteful studies.

These studies included those that investigated why

people risk their resources to join social groups, dif-

ferences between the social behavior of men and

women, and why potential political candidates decide

to run for office. Other Congress members defended

the NSF and noted that such criticisms were the re-

sult of faulty, sloppy research by the politicians, not

the type of research the NSF supports through its

peer review process (Lederman, 1998).